Re: Compiler project needed

dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner)
27 Feb 2000 02:35:00 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: Compiler project needed cbrtjr@ix.netcom.com (Charles E. Bortle, Jr.) (2000-02-22)
Re: Compiler project needed torbenm@diku.dk (2000-02-22)
Re: Compiler project needed escargo@mirage.skypoint.com (2000-02-23)
Re: Compiler project needed sasulzer@seanet.com (Stephen Sulzer) (2000-02-23)
Re: Compiler project needed jkahrs@castor.atlas.de (Juergen Kahrs) (2000-02-23)
Re: Compiler project needed danwang+news@cs.princeton.edu (Daniel C. Wang) (2000-02-27)
Re: Compiler project needed dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (2000-02-27)
Re: Compiler project needed srineet@email.com (Srineet) (2000-02-27)
Re: Compiler project needed franck.pissotte@online.fr (Franck Pissotte) (2000-02-28)
Re: Compiler project needed anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2000-03-06)
Re: Compiler project needed nr@labrador.eecs.harvard.edu (2000-03-06)
Re: Compiler project needed peter.r.wilson@boeing.com (Peter Wilson) (2000-03-06)
Re: Compiler project needed rkrayhawk@aol.com (2000-03-06)
[1 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Feb 2000 02:35:00 -0500
Organization: Oklahoma State University
References: 00-02-112 00-02-122
Keywords: practice

On 23 Feb 2000 14:09:30 -0500,
  David S Cargo <escargo@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote:
>operating systems. For example, look at the languages tcl/tk, perl,
>python, Squeak Smalltalk, Icon, and of course C. Now all of these
>languages are multiplatform. Now, how could you arrange for some or
>all of these to use a common runtime system so that each system
>doesn't need to create and maintain its own unique runtime?


(They'll still have to keep a small runtime system around to make the
common runtime correspond to the interface the language demands.
Taking that as irrelevant detail . . .)


For the part for which a common runtime system is feasible, they share
libc. To Posix systems, they can share stuff like Posix threads. I can
see the Boehm-Weiser garbage collector becoming more of a common
runtime component as time goes on.


But the places where they don't share a common runtime system, it's
usually because the interfaces are too different. The people working
on GCC are having problems interfacing exceptions between C, C++ and
Java. Different programming languages have vastly different threading
models. And you end up either adding coroutines just for Icon, adding
bloat for most people, or end up emulating them with threads or
something, for a loss in performance.


It would probably be nice if the common runtime was a little more
standardized among platforms, and not so C-centric. But the common
runtime _has_ developed to fill a lot of the places where it would be
useful, and (since it's a pragmatic thing) not intruded on places
where it would merely be an intruder.
--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.